For some odd reason, many liberal-minded people seem to have taken in by Ron Paul's campaign. Which, if you only listen to his anti-war, isolationist foreign policy and pro-civil liberites viewpoints, sounds like a refreshing change to the Bush administration. Here is why liberals shouldn't support him:
(1) He opposes all forms of gun control, reading the second amendment so broadly as to not allow for any form of restriction on any form firearm whatsoever.
(2) He supports legislation defining life as beginning at conception. This would outlaw all abortions under any circumstances at any stage of pregnancy, as well as many forms of birth control such as Plan B and IUDs.
(3) Repealing of all "pre-emeptive" environmental regulations. No more environmental law. Environmental law would be dealt with by private civil actions by private property owners against polluters. In other words, back to turn-of-the-century environmental standards. No private property? No environmental rights whatsoever. There was a reason environmental regulations came into effect, and that was because dealing with environmental actions in tort law proved completely ineffective in every way. Not the least of which is the fact that environmental problems (such as climate change) are dispersed among many property holders and the damage is incalculable with respect to the property interest.
(4) Abolishing the Department of Education
(5) Withdrawl from the UN and every other international treaty and obligation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've asked this before, but please--SOMEONE--explain to me why Republicans, on the one hand, want government out their "bedrooms" yet, on the other, want government to legislate their (and their wives') uteruses?
Post a Comment